Judge
One of the sore spots of Christianity has been the practice of some to stand in judgement against others. We are often reminded of the travesties of justice carried out by inquisitions, heresy trials and excommunications. Some people still have memories of the past generation when churches were more apt to carry out discipline against a member for some doctrinal or moral infraction. The bitterness and resentment brought about by such eccecliastical courts has caused a large segment of Christianity to have as their most-often quoted scripture text, "Judge not."
It has come to mean, for many who claim the name of Christian, that no one should evaluate another person's conduct or creed. It has become a slogan for twentieth-century ethical relativism. When it comes to another person's behavior or belief we are supposed to "mind our own business." The two topics we are cautioned against discussing are religion and politics because they are considered such private matters.
Speaking of politics, the media has assaulted us for the past month or so about the President's indiscretions. The opinion polls suggest that a majority of people feel that the President's personal actions are nobody's business and that it has no bearing on his ability to serve as President. This incident has brought before the public consciousness the great divide that exists over the issue of public and private morality.
Among these discussions we hear that one phrase, as if it is somehow the core of Jesus' teaching, "Judge not." But what did Jesus mean when he said those words and what was the context in which he said them?
The first thing we notice about these words of Jesus is that he did not stop there. Not only did he complete his phrase, he added an illustration. His complete thought could be paraphrased this way. If you cannot stand up to the same standard you use to pass judgement on someone else, then you would be advised to keep your mouth shut. Jesus' words are actually a warning against what we would call in collouqial terms, "the pot calling the kettle black."
In the story found in the Gospel of John, the scribes and Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman caught in adultery. According to the Law of Moses, this was a capital offense punishable by stoning. There were testing Jesus to see how he would react, hoping that he would not approve of the judgement and thereby go against Jewish law. Instead, he enigmatically began writing in the dirt. When they pressed him for an answer, Jesus responded, "Let the person who has not sinned among you be the first to throw a stone at her." One by one they began to leave until no one was left. None of the pots could call the kettle black.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus illustrates his point with a comical scene in a carpenter's shop. Now I must tell you that in my reading recently I came across a Jesus scholar who said that the text which connects Jesus to the trade of carpentry is not authentic since there aren't any hints of it in the oldest gospel traditions. By all accounts, this text is placed among the oldest sources we have about Jesus, and it certainly describes a woodworker's dilemma.
We are to imagine a scene, perhaps in the woodworker's shop, in which one carpenter notices a bit of sawdust or splinter of wood in the other person's eye. He wants to try to help him get that speck out of his eye. The punch line is that while he notices the tiny fragment in his friend's eye, he is completely oblivious to the huge beam that's poking out of his own eye. Jesus recommends that the person first remove the beam from his own eye, then he will be able to get up close to see what he's doing as he takes the minute object from his friend's eye.
Notice that Jesus does not tell the person, "if you are doing some sawing with a friend and you notice that he has a fleck of sawdust in his eye, you should just mind your own business. Maybe he likes having stuff in his eye. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. Who are you to force your ideas of ocular purity on someone else." Jesus does say to first check yourself out, but does conclude with "take the speck out of your brother's eye." In the same way, Jesus did not merely tell the woman caught in adultery, "No one condemns you and I don't either." He finished with, "Go, and sin no more."
The emphasis is upon the need for a person to conduct a self-analysis before criticizing someone else. You need to make sure that you will be able to survive the same type of scrutiny that you place over others. Before you become judge, you need to put yourself on trial.
In the following verses of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus makes plain that a person does need to make critical judgements about people. Just as grapes don't come from thorn bushes and figs don't come from thistles, a healthy tree bears good fruit and a diseased tree bears bad fruit. Jesus says, "By their fruits you will know them."
Jesus was talking about false prophets who misrepresent themselves and are like a wolf in sheep's clothing. You will know what kind of a person they are by what they do. Another way to put this is, conduct proceeds from a person's character.
The reason that a person's character matters is that conduct proceeds from character. It also follows then that a person's conduct is a clue as to their character. Character affects all of a person's conduct, not just in one area of life. If a person shoplifts during the weekend, you could also suspect that they are more apt to steal from their company during the week. If a person lies in his personal life, he cannot be trusted in his public life to tell the truth.
The way to evaluate a person's character, according to Jesus, is to look at his conduct. It is necessary to draw judgements. It is not a case of "I'm OK, you're OK." Jesus says, "Not everyone . . . will enter the kingdom of heaven." Some will claim to have been his servants, and Jesus will say, "I never knew you."
This past week I received a resume from a woman who's otherwise well-qualified to work in Computer Services. There was just one problem. Her first sentence of her resume read "I am currently pursing a degree in Mircocomputing...." Of course, she meant, "I am currently pursuing a degree in Microcomputing." The fact that she made two mistakes in the first line of her resume and didn't proof her own resume, may be an indication of how well she does when she types someone else's resume. A person's actions are indicative of their ability, just as a person's conduct reveals their character.
Jesus concludes the Sermon on the Mount with a comparison of the prudent man and the foolish man. Everyone who follows Jesus' teaching is like the prudent man who built his house on a solid foundation. When the storm came with its wind and flood, the house did not collapse. On the other hand, everyone who does not follow Jesus' teaching is like the foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain, the flood and the wind came against the house, and the house was utterly destroyed.
I saw a television news magazine show recently about building inspectors who were not doing their job properly. People videotaped the houses they bought simply falling apart because they hadn't been built properly. The walls weren't strong enough to hold up the roof and foundations had not been laid adequately. Not only were the buildings demolished, but people's lives were ruined.
The choices we make form the foundations of our lives. There are right choices and there are wrong choices. The right ones will make us strong to resist life's temptations, to develop the strength of character to stand against evil, to give us principles upon which to base our life decisions. The wrong choices will not give us the strong foundation of character, and when troubles and trials arise, our moral fiber will not be able to stand and we will be left in ruin.
In an article entitled "Moral and Character Development" (1991; Revised: 1994, 1996, 1997) by Dr. William G. Huitt of the Dept. of Psychology, Counseling & Guidance at Valdosta State University, Dr. Huitt states that the first major issue "in the education of young people today ... is the development of character." He begins by defining terms, "In general, character, good or bad, is considered to be observable in one's conduct. Thus, character is different from values in that values are orientations or dispositions whereas character involves action or activation of knowledge and values. From this perspective, values are seen as one of the foundations for character." His purpose in writing is to highlight the fact that "since the 1930's American education has increasingly turned away from character education as a primary focus." Dr. Huitt proposes a change in methodology. He writes, "we must acknowledge that there are some absolutes with respect to morality and character as accepted by commonalties among members of specific communities, major world religions, and moral philosophers. We, therefore, have an obligation to teach these in the family, in our school setting, in our religious organizations, and to support this effort in our communities. Moral and character development is integral to the development of self, and is as much the responsibility of early caregivers as it is of later educators." In order to change, it is necessary to begin with the teaching of the teachers. "educators must receive training in the fundamentals of other religions so they can understand the legitimacy of the values and character traits they are emphasizing. Most importantly, he concludes, "any understanding of moral education reflects views of human nature and development, of the innate potentialities which a child can be brought up to realize and these are heavily influenced by our views of spirituality."
Jesus recognized that spiritual values were critical to character formation from which proceeds our conduct. We can see it in other people -- and we must be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing -- and most of all we should first analyze our own lives before seeking to help others.